U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Royal Canadian Navy Conduct Tri-Party Staff Talks

Sur le même sujet

• 

  12 août 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

  How selecting the Lockheed Martin F-35 could impact Canada’s economy

  Posted on August 12, 2020 by Chris Thatcher The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II has long been considered the favourite to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-188 Hornet. But in a competition now being contested in a weakened economy in which the government faces a ballooning deficit and an uncertain job market, how well each fighter jet scores on acquisition and sustainment costs and economic benefits to Canada – worth 40 per cent of the evaluation – could be almost as important as how well the aircraft meets the Air Force's capability requirements. The Joint Striker Fighter (JSF) has become the most expensive weapons program ever for the U.S. Department of Defense and could cost more than US$1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan, according to the New York Times. The Department of National Defence in 2013 estimated the full cost of procuring and operating the F-35A at US$45 billion over 30 years. Others have pegged the number far higher. Furthermore, under the rules of the JSF partnership agreement, to which Canada is a signatory, Lockheed Martin cannot offer traditional industrial and technological benefits (ITBs) to Canadian industry. If company officials are feeling at a disadvantage, they aren't admitting it. “We understand the rules, we understand the way the competition is structured and the requirements,” said Steve Callaghan, Lockheed Martin's vice-president of F-35 development and a former U.S. Navy F-18 squadron commander and Fighter Weapons School instructor. In an online briefing to media on Aug. 6, Callaghan shared the results of an economic impact assessment that suggested selection of the F-35 could impact GDP by almost $17 billion and generate more than 150,000 jobs over the life of the program. Lockheed Martin submitted its 7,000-page bid on July 31 to replace the RCAF's 94 legacy Hornets with 88 F-35A fighters. The proposal is one of three the federal government received at the deadline for a contract valued at up to $19 billion. Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Saab's Gripen E are also in the running. The government may begin negotiations with one or more of the compliant bidders once the initial evaluation is completed, likely by next spring. The final decision is expected in 2022 and first deliveries by 2025. As the RCAF and Public Services and procurement Canada now begin to evaluate the proposals, Lockheed Martin was keen to remind Canadians the F-35A is the only fifth-generation fighter in the competition. “It truly is a generation ahead of any other fighter in production and can be procured for about the same or less than the far less capable fourth-generation aircraft,” said Callaghan. Though the Joint Strike Fighter program was originally launched with the intent of developing a more cost-effective family of aircraft with a shared design and common systems, and high production volume to reduce procurement and sustainment costs, the ambitious program has struggled with high development costs and the final price tag. However, between the second Low Initial Production Rate (LRIP) in 2008 and LRIP 10 in 2016, the cost of an F-35A decreased by about 60 per cent. As Lockheed Martin ramps up to a production rate of about 141 aircraft per year for LRIP 14, its reached a per unit cost of about US$78 million. The aim now is to bring the cost per flight hour down under US$25,000 by 2025. “We are putting that same level of focus, that same level of rigour and innovation to reduce sustainment costs,” said Callaghan. “With ... every flight hour, the enterprise gets smarter, more mature, more effective, more on track to meet several critical performance and affordability targets.” Equally important to a government that will be eying more well-paying jobs in the aerospace sector for decades to come, Callaghan highlighted Canada's involvement in the JSF program. The federal government was the first nation to sign on to the U.S. partnership and to date “more than 110 Canadian companies have contributed to the development and the production of the F-35,” he said, resulting in about US$2 billion in contracts. According to the economic impact study, conducted by Offset Market Exchange (OMX), a Toronto-based firm that helps OEMs develop their Canadian supply chains and provides analytics to ensure compliance with ITB obligations, the full impact of the program between production (2007 and 2046) and sustainment (2026 and 2058) could result in $16.9 billion to Canada's GDP. Though contracts are awarded on a “best value” basis among all participating countries, Canadian companies have proven their ability to compete and deliver quality, he added. And suppliers would be building parts not just for 88 aircraft, but likely for over 3,000. With the F-35 manufactured in the U.S. and many sustainment hubs already selected, several Canadian companies have been raised concerns about access to high-value in-service support work. Though Callaghan wouldn't commit to specifics, he noted that more than 2,500 F-35s could be operating in North America past 2060, resulting in “a large number” of potential sustainment opportunities. “I think Canadian industry is in a very good position to capture quite a few of those contracts,” he said. If Canada opts for another aircraft, the current contracts would be honoured “to their conclusion,” but would then be placed up for best value bids to JSF nations, he added. Though Lockheed Martin is still ramping up production and addressing software issues, the F-35 is a rapidly maturing program. Over 550 aircraft have been delivered and the entire fleet has accumulated over 300,000 flight hours. Eight services, including five outside of the U.S., have declared initial operating capability and the Royal Australian Air Force is expected to do so before the end of 2020. F-35s have been part of operations and joint and international exercises. Both Norway and Italy have conducted NATO Iceland air policing with their fleets. “These are indications of the maturity of the program,” said Callaghan. “We are a mature program that is really hitting stride.” https://www.skiesmag.com/news/f-35-impact-canadas-economy/

• 

  8 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

  Scheer rolls out an ambitious defence agenda, but critics ask: Where's the money?

  Murray Brewster · CBC News A little joke used to make its way around the Harper Conservative government every time National Defence presented Andrew Scheer's former boss with the bills for new equipment — about how Stephen Harper would emit an audible 'gulp' of alarm when they crossed his desk. Scheer, in the first of a series of election-framing speeches for the Conservatives, pledged yesterday to wrap his arms around Canada's allies, take the politics out of defence procurement, buy new submarines, join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and expand the current military mission in Ukraine in an undefined way. What was absent from the Conservative leader's speech — a greatest-hits medley of road-tested Conservative policy favourites, blended with jabs at the Trudeau government's record — was an answer to the first question his supporters usually ask on these occasions: How are you going to pay for it? Deficit hawk or defence hawk? The Liberals have set the federal government on course to increase defence spending by 70 per cent by 2027. The cost of what Scheer is proposing — submarines and missile defence — would have to be shoehorned into that framework somehow. Either that, or he'd have to radically redesign the current defence spending program. Scheer's speech was greeted with raised eyebrows by more than one defence sector observer. "When he starts talking about deficits, you can kiss all that goodbye," said Stephen Saideman, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University. "In other speeches, he talked about being a deficit hawk. That would have real implications for the defence stuff." The Harper government increased defence spending during the Afghan war and made a series of promises to revitalize the military, but ended up cutting its budget and postponing projects in order to eliminate the deficit. 'Harper all over again' Saideman said Scheer's speech did not offer an ironclad guarantee that he'd avoid doing the same thing, and was even inaccurate in its characterization of the Liberals' record on defence spending. A full half to two-thirds of the defence and foreign policy vision Scheer laid out, he said, was "Harper all over again" — but with some surprising differences. His embrace of allies was much warmer than it was with the previous Conservative crowd, which tended to look upon NATO with a jaundiced eye. "I will reinvigorate Canada's role in the alliances we share with our democratic allies. This includes existing alliances like NORAD, NATO, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Five Eyes, but it will also include overtures to India and Japan," Scheer said. He also pledged a Conservative government would do more in Eastern Europe. "This will include expanding upon the current missions to support Ukraine and providing Ukraine's military with the equipment they need to defend their borders," said the Conservative leader. Scheer didn't say in his speech what he wants Canada to do in Eastern Europe that it isn't doing now — short of putting combat troops on the front line of Ukraine's breakaway eastern districts, or selling offensive weapons to Kiev. Scheer did promise to take the lead on a potential United Nations peacekeeping mission, a proposal that has been out there in the international community for months and has largely gone nowhere. Other ideas that often go nowhere filled out the rest of Scheer's speech — like the promise of a fix for the Canadian military's complex, cumbersome system for buying equipment. Politicians are to blame, Scheer said. "Military procurement in Canada is hyper-politicized, to our detriment," he said. "By playing politics with these matters, governments have diminished the important responsibility to adequately and expediently equip the Armed Forces." To accept that argument, one must set aside his party's favourite rallying cry during the politically blistering F-35 debate of half a dozen years ago: If you don't support the plane, you don't support the troops. Politics-free procurement? Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia defence policy expert, said removing politics from procurement decisions would be a fantastic step forward, one that could save taxpayers boatloads of money by doing away with pet projects and regional interests. "It's an admirable goal, but he would be the first prime minister ever to take the politics out of defence procurement," he said. "So, I'm skeptical about whether he would actually do so ... I take that statement with a very large grain of salt." The absence of a clear fiscal pledge also troubles Byers, who noted that replacing Canada's Victoria-class submarines with either German or Swedish-built boats would be expensive. So would participation in ballistic missile defence, which has various levels of participation from research and development all the way up to anti-missile radar and batteries. It is, he said, all about the dollars. "I think that when we talk about defence spending and defence budgets, we have to talk about real money going out the door in terms of signed contracts," said Byers. "And neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have been able to deliver much in the way of signed contracts for the last 20 years." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-rolls-out-an-ambitious-defence-agenda-but-critics-ask-where-s-the-money-1.5127028

• 

  5 mars 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

  Feds to invest billions less in new military equipment, may fall short on NATO spending target

  By Lee Berthiaume The Canadian Press The federal government will invest billions of dollars less in new military equipment than promised this year, raising concerns about the readiness of the Canadian Forces and the prospect that Canada will fall short on another NATO spending target. The Trudeau government in 2017 released a defence policy that included dramatic increases in the amount of money to be spent on new aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and other military equipment each year for the next two decades. The investments are considered vital to replacing the Canadian Forces' aging fighter jets, ships and other equipment with state-of-the-art kit. Yet while the government is on track to invest more in new equipment for the second year in a row, budget documents show the Defence Department will still fall short more than $2 billion on the government's plan to spend $6.5 billion. The government spent $2.3 billion less than planned last year, largely because of delays in projects such as the government's huge plan to buy new warships, though also because some things ended up costing less than expected. The department's top civil servant, deputy minister Jody Thomas, told a House of Commons committee last week that about $700 million was because some projects came in under budget and other “efficiencies, so we didn't need that money.” But Thomas acknowledged the department was to blame for some of the other underspending and industry has also faced challenges in delivering on projects – though she said it shouldn't be a surprise there have been some problems given the number of projects underway. “There are going to be some slowdowns by us,” she said, adding: “If money isn't moving quite quickly enough because of a problem with a particular supply chain, a particular supplier, a contract, the way we've defined a project, we work with industry to try to resolve that.” While the fact the department saved money on some projects was seen as a positive development, Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he is nonetheless concerned that hundreds of millions of dollars in promised new investments aren't being realized. “Despite the explanation that was given by officials at committee, we still feel projects are falling behind, promises are going to be broken and ultimately the Canadian Armed Forces will not get the equipment that it needs in a timely manner,” Bezan told The Canadian Press. “The whole idea that they're finding efficiencies is good news. But at the same time, those dollars should be getting re-invested in other capital projects that aren't off the books yet.” Thomas did not say which projects will be affected by the underspending. And the underspending doesn't just mean delivery of some promised equipment will be delayed, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; it also threatens Canada's ability to meet a key NATO spending target. All members of the military alliance agreed in 2014 to spend two per cent of their gross domestic products on the military within a decade – a commitment that has since taken on new importance with U.S. President Donald Trump's demanding all NATO allies spend more. While Canada has long resisted that target and the Liberal defence policy shows spending only reaching 1.4 per cent of GDP by 2024-25, the Liberal government has said it will achieve another NATO target to direct 20 per cent of defence spending to new equipment. “So the military is not getting re-equipped as fast as intended when the defence policy was published,” Perry said in an interview. “And we had basically reassured NATO that we were going to really do a good job at spending on recapitalization, and we're not nearly as far ahead as we should be on that.” https://globalnews.ca/news/5018310/federal-government-military-spending-nato/